Most bike enthusiasts I know own more than one bike, and most have a favorite one to ride, and the rest often spend their days gathering dust. This might be the answer to your storage problems for a surprisingly small amount of money.

A young enterprising neighbor of mine, who has a company called Widras, has a Bike Cover that is large enough to cover a motor cycle, it is waterproof and tear resistant, strong enough for outdoor use. Wind and rain, and all that.

Not that the bicycle enthusiasts I know store their bikes outside, but at a price one would expect to pay for a cheap cotton dust cover, you can hardly pass this up.

The Widras cover is just $14.97, from Amazon or $19.99 from Wall-Mart. Yes less than twenty bucks and free shipping. Plus it comes with a nice combination cable lock that is approximately 46 Inches long, (116 cm.) included in the price.

As this cover is big enough for a motorcycle, I figured it would cover three bicycles, so I lined up three of my own bikes, and the cover fitted perfectly. (See all the pictures above.)

My bikes are on the small side, but most bicycles are about the same length, (Wheelbase.) within an inch or two. Larger frames will be taller of course. But the cover has elastic at the bottom, plus straps with quick-release buckles to keep the bottom edge in place.

(Above.) The cover has two large metal eyelets at the front. The idea being to park your motorcycle near a fence post. Slip the cover over, then use the cable lock to go through the eyelets, through the front wheel, and around the fence post. Thereby, not only locking the bike to the post, but securing the cover also.

Of course locking a bicycle this way is not all that secure as one can easily remove the front wheel and steal the rest of the bike, leaving the sorry owner with a cover and a front wheel.

So in the unlikely event you are storing your bicycles outside, some extra locks around the frame would be a good idea. This cover would be great for people touring with a tent, as one cover would serve for two or three bicycles.

Eddy Merckx (Above.) won the Tour de France in 1969, 1970, 1971, and 1972. He opted not to enter the race in 1973, even though he would miss the opportunity to win the race five times in a row. The reason: Animosity from the French fans.

Instead the rode the Giro d’Italia and the Vuelta a Espana and won them both that year. By doing that, he was able to show the world he was still the best rider, at the same time appease the French fans by giving someone else a chance. Merckx came back in 1974 to equal Frenchman Jacques Anquetil, in winning the TDF five times.

Anquetil did not win five in a row, he won in 1957, then four consecutively from 1961 to 1964. If Eddy Merckx had not opted out of the 1973 Tour, he no doubt would have won that year too, making it a record six wins all in a row. And that would have really pissed off the French fans.

Jacques AnquetilBy opting out of the Tour de France in 1973, Eddy Merckx still goes down in history as the “Greatest Rider Ever,” by the sheer number of races the won over the years. He chose to honor people’s feelings over his own ego.

What a shame that Chris Froome is not taking a leaf from Eddy’s book and opting voluntarily out of this year’s Tour de France. Why would anyone want to participate in an event when no one wants you there?

The Tour Organizers don’t want him there, the UCI doesn’t want him there, and many fans of the sport, including myself, don’t want him there. And the French fans most certainly don’t want him there.

Please Froomey, pack up your bicycle and stay home.

By insisting that he will ride the Tour because he legally can, is offering up a big “Fuck You,” to fans everywhere. I’ll be checking the result daily, but. I probably won’t be watching the race, I simply will not waste my time.

Froome will no doubt go down in history as a great rider, but will never be in the same class as Eddy Merckx. And to those who will say Eddy Merckx doped too, if you dismiss Merckx you dismiss every other great cyclist though history, including the likes of Fausto Coppi, and Gino Bartali, etc.

Jacques Anquetil never hid that he took drugs and in a debate with a government minister on French television said only a fool would imagine it was possible to ride Bordeaux–Paris on just water.

It didn’t stop doping, it was just no longer an open secret, and was denied and not talked about. Amphetamines like all stimulants, give a boost of energy, but take too much and the result is counterproductive.

The doping issue today is a different matter with sophisticated medications like EPO. Now it is a case of those with the most money can buy the best scientists to administer the optimum amount of dope, bribe officials if caught, and hire the best lawyers to fight the case if it goes to trial.

Chris Froome and team Sky are abusing the Therapeutic Use Exemptions. (TUE) Salbutamol is allowed to treat Froome’s asthma, but there is a limit to how much can be used before it becomes a performance enhancer.

Froome went double the allowed amount, and is now throwing a ton of money into proving the test is flawed. Instead of just ‘fessing up and saying, “Oops, I didn’t mean to but I took too much…Sorry.” Show some class, like Edddy Merckx and sit this one out, while this whole mess gets sorted.

As cycling becomes more and more popular, more people choose to ride a bike to work each day rather than drive. We occasionally hear calls for cyclists to be licensed, or a tax imposed, in the same way automobile drivers are licensed and taxed.

The idea of licensing cyclists usually comes from city governments rather than on a state or national level. The argument is usually along the lines that bike lanes and other facilities cost money, and it only seems fair that cyclists should pay some of this cost.

However, in practical terms any attempt to tax or license cyclists in the past has always turned out to be a bureaucratic nightmare. It always costs more to implement such a plan than the income generated. Plus law enforcement and the court system has to then impose fines on those not having a license.

Sidewalks have been in place in cities everywhere since before the beginning of the last century, and no one has ever suggested that pedestrians should pay for sidewalks. Sidewalks make it safer to walk, bike lanes make it safer to ride a bicycle. And anyway revenues from drivers’ licenses or even road taxes do not pay for roads. So really that should be the end of that argument.

When automobiles first appeared there were no laws or regulations, you could simply buy a car, jump in and drive it. Pretty much in the same way as we can buy a bicycle today and ride it anywhere.

Later because of wholesale carnage on the roads, laws were passed and licenses issued to drivers. As a result, driving is a privilege, one that can be taken away, whereas cycling like walking is a right. Although cyclists and pedestrians are still subject to the laws of the road. It appears no one can be prevented from walking or riding a bike, even if they break the law.

So what is a right? There are so called God given rights, but as people have the right to choose whether they believe in God or not, how does that work? If you don't believe in God, do you not have any God given rights? Are you obliged to respect other people's God given rights? As it is, the only God given right I can think of is our right to live.

If you look at The Bill of Rights there are very few actual rights. I don’t see a right to ride a bicycle mentioned. There is the right to bear arms, the right to practice a religion of your choice, etc.

After that it appears the function of government (In theory anyway.) is to leave us alone, and we are free to do as we please as long as we follow certain laws wherever they apply.

It appears to me that rights are rarely granted, they are simply taken for granted.

A goood example, in recent years cell phones have become available and some assume it is their right to own one and talk and send text messages whenever they please, including while driving. It turns out this is not such a good idea so in some places this practice is being outlawed. Have people lost a right, or was it just an assumed right in the first place?

A few years ago, people had the right to smoke just about anywhere they pleased. However, that right infringed on everyone else’s right not to breathe secondhand smoke. So, now that right has gradually been taken away, and smokers are now privileged to smoke in fewer and fewer places.

Because riding a bicycle on public roads is for the most part not a danger to other road users, it is doubtful than anyone will stop us doing it. Cycling is a good idea. It cuts down on congestion in our cities, it is better for the environment, and it should be encouraged because it is good for the physical and mental well-being of the participant.

My question is, are there any true rights or privileges? Or is this just an ongoing daily debate among millions of people, on the streets, on the talk shows and in the courtrooms? We all have certain rights, and we get to keep them as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others. If they do we may lose those rights, it is happening all the time.

In which case there is little difference between rights and privileges, either can be taken away. We should all remember this and in particular those cyclists who blatantly and regularly flout the laws of the road.

If there is one thing I learned building bicycle frames, it is that no two people are alike.

If you could assemble a hundred people, all the exact same height, and then further separate into groups those with similar leg length.

You would find within those groups, the thigh, lower leg and foot measurements would all vary.

Even within the same race, people have different facial features, complexions, hair color, etc. When you consider all peoples, the variations are infinite. An individual’s finger prints are unique, and now we know that DNA is too.

Most people accept these differences and seldom question why. Therefore, it really should be no surprise that people’s opinions will vary even more infinitely than our physical differences.

What are opinions but a collection of thoughts, based on our individual beliefs and experiences? Sometimes called a “Point of View,” meaning literally, the world as one individual sees it from where they stand.

No two individuals can have the same view if they stand in different places.

In spite of this we sometimes argue and fight defending our point of view, or try to impose our opinions on others.

We accept every other difference in the human species, why do we expect the thought pattern of others to be in line with ours? We are each a free thinking spirit, and I can’t think of anything more random that a person's thoughts.

Could it be because our opinions are the yardstick by which we view and evaluate the world? It is how we judge situations and other people. Our opinions have been formed largely by our life experiences, our parents, teachers and other pivotal people in our lives.

Our opinions can change over time with changing circumstances, if we find a better one we change it. However, at any given time our opinion is the best it can be. We just can’t understand why anyone would have a different opinion, after all, ours is the best.

It is not the difference of opinion that is wrong, it is the failure to see that the other’s view point is from an entirely different place.

It is the single most cause of conflict between individuals, co-workers, friends, and families. On a larger scale, it is the basic reason nations assemble armies and go to war with each other.

I have found that defending one’s point of view is just a huge waste of time and energy. It achieves little. Rarely does either side move any closer to the other’s way of thinking. Often it drives the two sides further apart

Instead I find it more constructive and fruitful to listen to the other’s opinion. Another’s estimation is often difficult to understand and may even arouse aversion.

But by the simple act of listening I am able to better understand the other's point of view without the obligation that it has to become mypoint of view. I may not necessarily agree, but I may see the position he is standing that gives him that view.

I learned a lot in the fifteen months I worked for Masi, from October 1980 until December 1981. I was hired to assemble and braze frames, and I found by building these in batches of 5 or 10 all the same size, I could build 10 frames a week, 40 a month, quite comfortably.

Other people did the file and finish work, and Masi employed a full time painter. I knew if I opened my own shop I would need to operate in a similar manner. There is a limit to the amount one man can produce, no matter how many hours he may work.

I knew finding a skilled Bicycle painter was not going to be easy. I was actually surrounded by painters, they had all learned their skills working for Masi, People like Brian Baylis, Jim Cunningham, and Jim Alan, but they all had their own established businesses, and would rather have had me subcontract with them to paint my frames.

However, I had always done my own paint, and felt I needed to have my own paint facility, and have complete control over the process. Plus a large chunk of the profit in framebuilding is lost when using a sub-contract painter. I decided I would train my own painter, to do the job the way I preferred, and I could take up the slack during the training process.

I didn’t have to look very far as it happened, the ideal candidate was right under my nose. Marcella Welch was a young girl who delivered the Imron paint to me. She worked for a local Paint Supply Company, drove a little red pickup truck and I would see her almost on a daily basis. If she wasn’t bringing my paint, she would be dropping off supplies for the other above mentioned painters, all working out of the same shop.

Marcella always showed an interest in what we were doing, and one day in quite casual conversation, mentioned that she would “Love to learn a skill like this.” I told her I would be opening my own shop in San Marcos in a few weeks, and there would be a job if she was interested. That is how Marcella Welch became my first full time painter.

The picture at the top of the page was a posed simulation of painting a frame. In reality there was a special device that slid inside the seat tube like a seat post, but with an expanding rubber sleeve to hold it in place. There was a ring on the top were the frame hung securely from the ceiling of the paint booth.

A piece of tube placed though the bottom bracket shell acted as a handle so the frame could be maneuvered with the left hand, while holding the paint gun in the right hand. The painter could rotate the frame, and at the same time twist it in any direction to paint all around every tube.

Painting bicycle frames requires a special set of skills. You can’t paint one side of the frame, the turn it around and paint the other side. The paint where you started would be dry and would not flow out smoothly. Each tube has to be painted separately. This can cause problems as it is easy to get a buildup of paint where the tubes meet at the lugs.

A beginning painter would start by spaying the primer coat. This dries to a matt finish, and has to be sanded anyway before the color coats are applied. Marcella started in 1983 when the new shop opened. The John Howard’s were the frames she would learn on.

The Howard frame had chrome plating to be masked off before the frame is sandblasted and immediately prime coated. The color coat was a single color, then dry fix (Rub on.) decals applied. Followed by eight clear coats over the decals, and after the paint was cured in the paint oven, the clear coats over decals was sanded smooth.

All the steps outlined in the previous paragraph are all procedures that a beginning painter would soon carry out. The final finish clear coat is the most difficult. A wet coat applied quickly so the clear coat flows out smooth with no dry spots. But at the same time not so wet that the paint runs.

With some 300 Howard frames produced in less than a year, Marcella, learned quickly, and within three months was handling all the John Howard painting, including the all-important final clear coat.

Marcella was my number one painter, in that she was the first, in the years 1983 to 1986 when production was at its highest. 300 John Howards, plus all the 1st. Generation Fuso frames, which is probably another 1,000 frames. Add to that the first year’s production of the Recherché.

I recently spoke to Marcella on the phone and we reminisced some. She said it was a lot of fun. She remembered going to the trade shows and seeing people like Bernard Hinault and Eddy Merckx in person.

However, I got the impression that she didn’t grasp the importance, or the lasting value of the work she did. The frames she painted are still out there. Most with the original paint, many still being ridden and enjoyed by their owners to this day.

In 1986 I moved my business the Temecula, sixty mile north of San Marcos. Marcella didn’t care for the daily commute, and left before the end of 1986. She went to work for Cyclart, and painted a number of Greg LeMond frames.

Jay Denny, who is the younger brother of Russ Denny, my former apprentice, took over as painter. He also had no previous experience, but I trained him. Like Marcella, Jay learned quickly and did some fine work. He left around 1990 to pursue other career goals.

My final painter was Morgan Carlton, who unlike his predecessors, had worked for Cyclart and was already a skilled painter. When I left the business in 1993, Russ Denny took over the shop and Morgan stayed on for a while as a freelance painter.